Disturbing polls

Small government, then and now

ALMOST half of Mississippi's Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal, according to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling. (Some have accused PPP of having a liberal bias, but the pollster has proven rather accurate, and the question in this poll was straighforward.) Call me naive, but I find this level of support for anti-miscegenation laws in 2011 shocking. And these are Republicans, who are no doubt nominally in favour of less government, yet see no problem with government stopping a man and a woman who love each other from getting married because their skin tones clash. To call this attitude pernicious, small-minded and contradictory is merely to state the obvious, but it does have a long pedigree.

Around 150 years ago, another Mississippian said, "all we ask is to be let alone." That was Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy's president, almost three weeks after the Battle of Fort Sumter, and it's a favourite line of those who believe the war was fought over "states' rights" and federal power. But Davis and his ilk were not always so quiescent. In 1848, just after the acquisition of California and New Mexico, President James Polk was "decidedly in favour of purchasing Cuba & making it one of the States of the Union." Cheering him on was Jefferson Davis, then a senator from Mississippi. "Cuba must be ours," he said, to "increase the number of slaveholding constituencies." Once the plan to buy Cuba failed, Mississippi's other senator, Albert Gallatin Brown, started drooling over Mexico. "I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican states; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery." So Davis and Brown may have wanted the federal government to leave them alone, but don't mistake that plea for principle: Cubans and Mexicans deserved no such shield from federal interference.

Two years later, Congress passed a law granting the federal government immense national power. One would have expected outrage from southern states'-rights advocates; in fact they urged its passage. The law in question was the fugitive slave law. It required federal marshals and deputies to help slaveowners capture their "property" and fined them $1,000 if they refused. It imposed strict penalties on anyone, in any state, who harboured an escaped slave or obstructed his capture. Naturally, it was biased in favour of claimants. Southern senators defeated their northern counterparts' efforts to attach basic civil liberties such as habeas corpus and a right to a trial by jury to the law: these rights, they reasoned, did not apply to property, only to citizens. To Davis then and to those 46% of Mississippi Republicans today, federal power is horrific tyranny when it stops them from doing something they want to do. But when it stops other people from doing something they don't want them to do (helping slaves escape, marrying people of different races), they seem to have little problem with it.

Anyway, appalling as these attitudes may be they are both irrelevant—miscegenation laws aren't coming back, however strong a showing Mississippi's Republicans make at the polls—and bound to fade. More than two-thirds of the voters surveyed in that poll were 46 or older. But Mississippi's mixed-race population is among the country's fastest growing.

Dear Mexico,
Canada has begun negotiating with us to acquire Mississippi. We do not want you to miss out on this exciting growth opportunity. How much primo marijuana will you trade for Mississippi? Keep in mind that the Canadians have mentioned parts of B.C. in their proposal.
Hugs and Kisses,
America

To Turkey Vulture from Mexico:
Wrong question. How much will you pay us to take Mississippi off your hands? You could start with a lot of money, then legalize marijuana, and stop selling automatic weapons to our drug gangs. Then we might think about it. Maybe. If you ask us very nicely.

Obviously, I agree with all the sentiments in this piece, but I don't see evidence for the thesis, except with regard to the Fugitive Slave Law. Some questions:
1- Did Mississippians specify that they wanted federal anti-miscegenation laws?
2- Do we know that the purpose of Davis' interest in Cuba was to add votes for a national slavery law or to add defensive votes in the hope of preventing abolition?
3- Do we know that Brown intended to spread slavery to Mexico by federal means or was Bleeding Kansas more the model?

And even with the Fugitive Slave Law, there's a fair argument that this was an application of the full faith and credit clause, which seems clearly to be a limitation on the leverage of one state over another, which is the space in which the U.S. government otherwise operates.

When we talk about big government versus small government, the key is who is "we" and who is the government. In states where there's a strong consensus in opposition to the national consensus, "we" is often the state and the U.S. often the "government."

But I'll turn around and reagree with the conclusion because it agrees with one of my central beliefs about government- that we are all libertarians when the doorbell rings and all big government conservatives when there's a racket next door.

fsamuels wrote: Apr 8th 2011 5:21 GMT
"I'm not surprised that there are people who still think interracial marriage should be illegal but nearly half of Mississippi Republicans do?! That is depressing. How is it that people can still hold that view and not feel shame and embarrassment? People holding that view should be called out for their bigotry."

Welcome to Mississippi. The folks that feel that way very likely feel no shame about it whatsoever, and would not mind in the least to be called out for their bigotry -- in fact, they would probably be proud of it. There are scattered examples of Unreconstructed Confederates to be found everywhere (I ran into a few in Illinois in fact), but Mississippi is on of the few backwaters where they seem to flourish. Think of them as an endangered species that needs a particular climate to thrive in.

This poll is so bogus, it's almost hilarious. It absolutely does not show that 46% of Republicans in Mississippi are against interracial marriage. Did anyone here actually look at the results? Try this on for size:

(Taken from the poll data. This is clearly shown in tabular form on the PPP website.)

Only 17% of "somewhat liberals" and 33% of "very liberals" think that it should be legal!! Nice poll, huh? What's more, 1/3 of respondents were over 65 (state average is 12%) and over 2/3 were 45 or older. Talk about a skewed representation of the people.
Who's to say any of these people are actually Republicans??

Just goes to show you can make numbers say whatever you want. This poll, like many others, is a total farce.
Grow a brain, people, and think for yourselves instead of gobbling up these inane headlines like a bunch of mindless guppies.

1. The respondents were merely asked if they thought interracial marriage should be legal or illegal. I'm not really sure why the interracial marriage question was in the poll in the first place. It is even crosstabbed with various potential candidates -- my guess is that the pollster wanted to infer the questionable suitability of the candidates by the type of support they attract (a type of "guilt by association"). It is an old tactic... you could just as easily walk through a prison polling inmates of who they liked for President, then try to tar-and-feather the candidates with something like "75% of murderers, rapists, and child molesters like Candidate X!!!". It is kind of a pointless question anyway, since the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virgina struck down miscegination laws over 40 years ago.

2. Southern politicians were interested in expanding the U.S. into the Carribean and into Latin and South America, not just Cuba. There were dreams of creating a tropical, agrarian empire fueled by cotton, sugar, and slaves. The northern politicians had similar dreams, but they were focused on the West and Canada. They didn't dream of cotton, sugar, and slaves -- instead they dreamed of wheat, corn, railroads, and slaughtering indians. Some dreams do come true apparently.

3. Southern politicians imagined that slavery would simply occur in due course in Central and Latin America and the Carribean. Cuba already had slaves, and the indigenous people of Central America were effectively slaves to the Spanish, then Mexican, landowners. The Spanish were not much better than we were in regards to forced labor (Spain didn't abolish slavery in Puerto Rico until 1863 and in Cuba in 1866).

Wow. This article about Confederate hypocrisy could so easily apply to the major U.S. political parties of today. Don't regulate carbon, but criminalize abortion. Legalize pot, but ban incandescent light bulbs. Friday serenity descend upon me...

SirWellington wrote: Apr 8th 2011 7:58 GMT
"The other weird thing is that it appears people self reporting as liberal Republicans are much more likely to report being against interracial marriage than conservative Republicans."

It is all a matter of perspective. A "liberal" Mississippi Republican probably classifies himself as a "liberal" because he is willing to buy beer on a Sunday and goes to Episcopal church instead of Baptist church. It has nothing to do with progressive thoughts about racial equality.

Dear Unhappy Realist, Ambassador from Mexico,
We will consider your proposal to legalize marijuana, but only if you flat-out refuse to send us any of your good shit. Otherwise, we would rather keep generalized prohibition in place so that those of us in more socially liberal States can enjoy a disproportionate share of your nation's fine produce.

As for the automatic weapons, I'm afraid that is simply non-negotiable. We still have some fundamental beliefs in this country. See, e.g., the Latin words on some of our money, which roughly translate to: "Sawed off shotgun, hand on the pump/Left hand on a forty, puffing on a blunt."

As for money, we haven't been doing so well with our national accounting of late. But I've got like 40 pesos I could give you, if you can spot me postage.

You're also underestimating the inherent qualities of Mississippi. It shares its name with a mighty river, and part of its flag serves to preserve the memory of a short-lived North American nation. I believe that it also has some trees.

With Love,
Turkey Vulture, Bird of Death
Roving American Ambassador for the Purpose of Expelling Mississippi from the Union, Hopefully in Return for Something Good

If PPP isn't biased, why didn't they poll Democrats too? And you can't read that press release and not come away thinking they're biased. It is typical for unbiased sources to use terms like "hardcore Republicans" and "strident right-winger?"

I'm not surprised that there are people who still think interracial marriage should be illegal but nearly half of Mississippi Republicans do?! That is depressing. How is it that people can still hold that view and not feel shame and embarrassment? People holding that view should be called out for their bigotry.

The South is the nation's great and enduring storehouse of racism, jingoism, intolerance and obscurantism. The Republican Party chose to adopt these abom...er...characteristic viewpoints in order to win the South, and have succeeded thereby, for awhile.

Unless they come to their senses, by the next census, the GOP will still have the South - less Texas, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina - and a few of those empty states between the Mississippi and the Rockies. I hope that, instead, we have a grown-up center-Right party to vote for again by then.

No, it was just PPP being unbiased. This got me thinking that biased but scientificish studies are poisoning even wonks. I know the head of a think tank who's unquestionable highly intelligent but the sources he relies on aren't mainstream and of questionable reliability. We know that politicians and pundits cherry-pick studies but wonks pride themselves on being able to cut through the spin. Sure, they come with their own ideologies but one who hope that they'd adjust to the facts, not adjust the facts. Is the temptation to confirm biases just too great for anyone to hope to completely overcome?

The point about interracial marriage is somewhat specious. The census just measures people who identify as interracial. More young people today, if they are of mixed race, are more likely to identify as interracial. That's more acceptable today than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. It could just be that more people who would identify as "black" are identifying as "mixed," now, and there's no real way to know which is which. Obama, for example, would put black on his census (he's said as much before), even though he's mixed race, but he'd be more likely put mixed on his census if he were 19 in 2011 instead of 49.